Forum Discussion

16 Replies

  • KidShowtime1867's avatar
    KidShowtime1867
    Hero
    2 years ago

    @Treatmentworke66 wrote:
    @KidShowtime1867Again I didn't do anything he stick lifed me

    I'm 90% sure you're just trolling at this point. 

    Here's you initiating the tie-up:

    Your player model morphs here, likely due to the boards being so close, but the outcome is the same, a tie up:

  • thebrazenhead75's avatar
    thebrazenhead75
    New Hotshot
    2 years ago

    The first clip shouldn’t be a penalty.  It was just as the player was losing (or attempting to pass) the puck.  It was clearly within the allowed time frame to hit a player after losing possession.  

    The second clip shouldn’t be a penalty.  If anything it should be on #22 TML player for interference.  After the pass was clearly made #22 skated into him and lost balance probably due to lack of balance, strength, etc.  

    If the first clip is a penalty for making contact with a player without possession of the puck then in the second clip it should be a penalty on #22 for making contact with a player without possession of the puck. 

    The third clip should be a penalty.  It’s clearly obstruction by not allowing the player to move. 

About NHL 24 General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and talk with us about your experiences in NHL 24.4,284 PostsLatest Activity: 2 years ago